SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Again, a ridiculous argument. Drinking on your own time is legal, and universally acceptable unless you fall into a VERY specific range of career such as pilot or conductor. Drinking right before work, however, just like getting high just before work, is a totally different animal and neither is acceptable - it has nothing to do with the legality of one or the other, it has everything to do with common sense. Nobody was talking about being high on the job except you and richpats. All of us on the other side of the argument are in complete agreement that being high on the job is unacceptable, just like being drunk. Neither has to do with one's on personal proclivity to usage, only to the intelligence of the person at hand.
It was not a perfectly legitimate example, because it would be just as valid an argument against alcohol, which is not tested for. Legality doesn't enter into it because both are equally unacceptable on the job. The issue is when it does not affect your job performance, and again, after pages of posts, you still cannot support the idea that just because someone smoke when it doesn't affect their on the job performance, they are still a liability.
It is the point, because you think just because someone does it, it affects your performance. The presence of masking, and the fact that MANY successful people do it (and yes, I am in an industry where I am directly in contact with very successful people, and yes, I know many of them smoke, and yes, I know it does not affect their on the job performance) because they work for companies who test, suggests that your argument is wrong...people who smoke mask that fact, and they succeed at their jobs, and their employers are never the wiser for it, and their performance is never the worse for it. Sorry, but that ends that discussion. I know way more than 3 people that smoke, who perform very well at their jobs, who do not smoke on the job, who would perform poorly if they did smoke at their jobs. Follow me? Smoking does not equal bad performance. Period. More than 3 examples. Get it?
First, concentration camps are not gulags, please don't EVER conflate the two again as it is an insult to those who were involved in either. One group were persecuted for their religious and cultural beliefs, the other was forced into labor camps because they were trapped under a dictatorial regime bent on domination at no expense. Both were horrible and bring tears to my eyes just thinking about them, but to equate the two is to misunderstand the very different social situations that allowed each to happen. Second, yes, I also know survivors of the Holocaust, and the gulags, and have talked to both. And both of these horrible, horrible things started with the initial willingness of the public to trade off liberty for what they perceived to be the general good. With that said, my point was strictly related to the general willingness of people to give up liberties because of what there are TOLD is the general good, be it fascism or communism, and the overall fallacy of the idea that ANYONE should ever give up their liberty to a governmental or corporate entity.
See above, ignorant is not an applicable point relative to my comparison no matter how much you try. Any relinquishing of liberty leads down a very dark and unpleasant road. Please don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise, the two examples you gave above, while vastly more significant than what we are discussing, did begin with the same kind of small sacrifices. See McCarthy, Joseph for references.
Smoking pot CAN equal smoking pot at or before work. Drinking alcohol CAN equal drinking at or before work (yeah, seen that too, and it WAS in an industry with heavy machinery, forklifts, and various other things that made it a very big problem). Neither have any relevance to doing it away from work. Smoking pot does not mean smoking pot at work. Drinking does not mean drinking at work. You cannot equate the two simply because a very small percentage might do both. Managers have a responsibility to fire someone who does either, and none of it has to do with what they do at home.
Punished for what? A misdemeanor? Drug testing, what we have been talking about, has zero relevance to what he was punished for. While we all may have taken a step away from the original point, it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't punished for anything related to drug testing, on or off the job.
Agreed too, but not relevant to what you, I, Wildo, richpats, or Deus have been debating.
Really? I've worked at gas stations, pizza parlors, hotels, machining plants, assembly plants, shipping plants, liquidators and car dealerships. I've been a blue collar worker, I've managed blue collar workers. I've overseen forklift operators, I've been a forklift operator, I've managed detailers, salesman, people with and without green cards, assembly line workers and more. I've also got a degree from an ivy league university and have run the gamut of jobs. I think I've got a pretty good feel for both the lazy and the hard working. Suggesting pot is a factor in meter readers laziness is like suggesting that martinis are a factor for stock brokers' success. Not every stock broker is successful. Not every meter reader is lazy. Not every stock broker drinks martinis. Not every meter reader smokes pot. But there are lazy meter readers who smoke pot, just like there are successful stock brokers who drink martinis. To suggest that the overlap is the cause is beyond foolish.
Um...
$150? My speeding tickets cost more than that. This is how much the "law" cares about what they did, but a speeding ticket warrants a 1/8 of a year fine. A cabbie who got a 1/8 yearly salary fine for a speeding ticket would be on Oprah talking about it every day.Article said:
